The Community Land Model (CLM) is the land component of the Community Earth System Model (CESM) and is used in several global and regional modeling systems. In this paper, we introduce model developments included in CLM version 5 (CLM5), which is the default land component for CESM2. We assess an ensemble of simulations, including prescribed and prognostic vegetation state, multiple forcing data sets, and CLM4, CLM4.5, and CLM5, against a range of metrics including from the International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMBv2) package. CLM5 includes new and updated processes and Key Points: • Updated Community Land Model has more hydrological and ecological process fidelity and more comprehensive representation of land management. • The model is systematically evaluated using International Land Model Benchmarking system and shows marked improvement over prior versions. parameterizations: (1) dynamic land units, (2) updated parameterizations and structure for hydrology and snow (spatially explicit soil depth, dry surface layer, revised groundwater scheme, revised canopy interception and canopy snow processes, updated fresh snow density, simple firn model, and Model for Scale Adaptive River Transport), (3) plant hydraulics and hydraulic redistribution, (4) revised nitrogen cycling (flexible leaf stoichiometry, leaf N optimization for photosynthesis, and carbon costs for plant nitrogen uptake), (5) global crop model with six crop types and time-evolving irrigated areas and fertilization rates, (6) updated urban building energy, (7) carbon isotopes, and (8) updated stomatal physiology. New optional features include demographically structured dynamic vegetation model (Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator), ozone damage to plants, and fire trace gas emissions coupling to the atmosphere. Conclusive establishment of improvement or degradation of individual variables or metrics is challenged by forcing uncertainty, parametric uncertainty, and model structural complexity, but the multivariate metrics presented here suggest a general broad improvement from CLM4 to CLM5. Plain Language Summary The Community Land Model (CLM) is the land component of the widely used Community Earth System Model (CESM). Here, we introduce model developments included in CLM version 5 (CLM5), the default land component for CESM2 which will be used for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). CLM5 includes many new and updated processes including (1) hydrology and snow features such as spatially explicit soil depth, canopy snow processes, a simple firn model, and a more mechanistic river model, (2) plant hydraulics and hydraulic redistribution, (3) revised nitrogen cycling with flexible leaf stoichiometry, leaf N optimization for photosynthesis, and carbon costs for plant nitrogen uptake, (4) expansion to six crop types (global) and time-evolving irrigated areas and fertilization rates, (5) improved urban building energy model, and (6) carbon isotopes. New optional features include a demographically structured dynamic vegetat...

An overview of the Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2) is provided, including a discussion of the challenges encountered during its development and how they were addressed. In addition, an evaluation of a pair of CESM2 long preindustrial control and historical ensemble simulations is presented. These simulations were performed using the nominal 1° horizontal resolution configuration of the coupled model with both the “low‐top” (40 km, with limited chemistry) and “high‐top” (130 km, with comprehensive chemistry) versions of the atmospheric component. CESM2 contains many substantial science and infrastructure improvements and new capabilities since its previous major release, CESM1, resulting in improved historical simulations in comparison to CESM1 and available observations. These include major reductions in low‐latitude precipitation and shortwave cloud forcing biases; better representation of the Madden‐Julian Oscillation; better El Niño‐Southern Oscillation‐related teleconnections; and a global land carbon accumulation trend that agrees well with observationally based estimates. Most tropospheric and surface features of the low‐ and high‐top simulations are very similar to each other, so these improvements are present in both configurations. CESM2 has an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 5.1–5.3 °C, larger than in CESM1, primarily due to a combination of relatively small changes to cloud microphysics and boundary layer parameters. In contrast, CESM2's transient climate response of 1.9–2.0 °C is comparable to that of CESM1. The model outputs from these and many other simulations are available to the research community, and they represent CESM2's contributions to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6.

Aim To assemble a data set of global crop planting and harvesting dates for 19 major crops, explore spatial relationships between planting date and climate for two of them, and compare our analysis with a review of the literature on factors that drive decisions on planting dates. Location Global.Methods We digitized and georeferenced existing data on crop planting and harvesting dates from six sources. We then examined relationships between planting dates and temperature, precipitation and potential evapotranspiration using 30-year average climatologies from the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (CRU CL 2.0). ResultsWe present global planting date patterns for maize, spring wheat and winter wheat (our full, publicly available data set contains planting and harvesting dates for 19 major crops). Maize planting in the northern mid-latitudes generally occurs in April and May. Daily average air temperatures are usually c. 12-17°C at the time of maize planting in these regions, although soil moisture often determines planting date more directly than does temperature. Maize planting dates vary more widely in tropical regions. Spring wheat is usually planted at cooler temperatures than maize, between c. 8 and 14°C in temperate regions. Winter wheat is generally planted in September and October in the northern mid-latitudes. Main conclusionsIn temperate regions, spatial patterns of maize and spring wheat planting dates can be predicted reasonably well by assuming a fixed temperature at planting. However, planting dates in lower latitudes and planting dates of winter wheat are more difficult to predict from climate alone. In part this is because planting dates may be chosen to ensure a favourable climate during a critical growth stage, such as flowering, rather than to ensure an optimal climate early in the crop's growth. The lack of predictability is also due to the pervasive influence of technological and socio-economic factors on planting dates.

Irrigation delivers about 2,600 km 3 of water to the land surface each year, or about 2% of annual precipitation over land. We investigated how this redistribution of water affects the global climate, focusing on its effects on near-surface temperatures. Using the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) coupled to the Community Land Model (CLM), we compared global simulations with and without irrigation. To approximate actual irrigation amounts and locations as closely as possible, we used national-level census data of agricultural water withdrawals, disaggregated with maps of croplands, areas equipped for irrigation, and climatic water deficits. We further investigated the sensitivity of our results to the timing and spatial extent of irrigation. We found that irrigation alters climate significantly in some regions, but has a negligible effect on global-average near-surface temperatures. Irrigation cooled the northern mid-latitudes; the central and southeast United States, portions of southeast China and portions of southern and southeast Asia cooled by *0.5 K averaged over the year. Much of northern Canada, on the other hand, warmed by *1 K. The cooling effect of irrigation seemed to be dominated by indirect effects like an increase in cloud cover, rather than by direct evaporative cooling. The regional effects of irrigation were as large as those seen in previous studies of land cover change, showing that changes in land management can be as important as changes in land cover in terms of their climatic effects. Our results were sensitive to the area of irrigation, but were insensitive to the details of irrigation timing and delivery.